- Email: [email protected]
The scientific paper — 1977
Cell Biology
International
Reports,
THE
Vol. 1, No. 1, 1977
SCIENTIFIC
A NOTE
FROM L. M.
PAPER THE
- 1977
EDITOR
FRANKS
There are many motives for writing. George Orwell (1965) gives four; sheer egoism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse and political purpose. Scientists would accept these and most would add “the need to convey information”, although the need to impress grant-giving bodies and selection boards might be whispered sotto vote. One must accept that an essential part of science is communication but this is not always apparent to the average reader of scientific papers. “If people cannot communicate the least they can do is to shut up” is as sound a piece of advice for the scientist as for the playwright for whom it was originally intended. The need to communicate precisely and correctly is not always appreciated. St. Augustine is alleged to have said “A man who is asking God to forgive his sins does not much care whether the third syllable of ignoscere is pronounced long or short. What is correctness of speech except the observance of the usage of others, confirmed by the authority of the speakers of old”. Philip Howard (1976) who provided this illustration goes on to say “Correctness of speech matters because its absence muddies communication. God, unto whom all hearts be all desire known, can get the message (we presume) open, through the miasma of incorrect and inadequate words. The rest of us are extremely prone to misunderstand each other without muddling matters further by misusing the anyway, common currency of words”. Failure to communicate is not always a simple reflection of muddled thinking since many clearthinking scientists give information in speech clearly and with brevity but picking up a pen or sitting in front of a typewriter seems to produce a pattern of thought and expression and a choice of words which can only be explained as a reflex conditioned by the vast Gowers which we have all absorbed. quantity of “literature” (1973) whose books should be bedside reading for all
Cell Biology
6 contributors jargon and
to this pompous
Journal, verbosity
International
gives many which can
Reports,
examples be avoided
Vol. 1, No. I, 1977 of padding, easily.
The standard scientific paper is still the most frequently used method for presenting information but it is probably no longer the most efficient. We now have an opportunity to consider new approaches. For many scientists, and for some work, the standard paper may be the most appropriate form to use. But in many papers, a great deal of unnecessary information is given and the points to be made are often obscured by scientific jargon. For an informed audience an introduction need be very brief indeed. For example an introductory sentence stating that a “fuller understanding of factors controlling cell growth is of great importance in cancer research” can only be regarded as an obeisance to fund giving rather than a necessary introductory statement. bodies, Materials and methods is a vital section but this too can be Standard methods no longer need to be described abbreviated. or referenced, unless the precise application of a technique is an essential feature in obtaining the results described. For example, in electron microscopy, all that is required is the statement, e. g. that “glutaraldehyde osmic acid fixed tissue was embedded in Araldite”. Precise details of embedding times and the fact that sections were mounted on grids and examined in a particular microscope are not of any relevance in most cases. The same principle applies to most other technical methods in cell biology. The whole of this section may be given as a Technical Appendix. The presentation of results can also be reconsidered. Some material may be presentable in tabular form. Data given in a table or illustrated adequately need not be described at length. Other data may best be presented as a series of specific points, e. g. We found that 1. L.
3. to be made in discussion may also be made The implications of our results are e. g. 1. 2. etc. 3. The use and abuse of references is another area which can be In many cases one reference to a critical review considered. may be more useful than a series of references to single papers The points specifically,
Cdl Biology
International
Reports,
7
Vol. 1, No. 1, 1977
in which a particular point was made for the first considered in the light of more recent information.
time
but not
Our policy statement and Instructions to Authors give more No doubt there are many other ways in which practical details. scientific communication may be improved. Cell Biology International Reports will consider any that are suggested. REFERENCES Gowers, E. (1973) The Complete Plain Words (Revised by B. Fraser) Penguin Books Limited, Harmondsworth, U. K. Howard, P. (1976) T ime we all turned our backs on ‘interface’. The Times (London) 5th March. Orwell, G. (1965) Why I Write. In: Decline of the English Murder and Other Essays. pp. 180-188. Penguin Books Limited, Harmondsworth, U. K.
International
Reports,
THE
Vol. 1, No. 1, 1977
SCIENTIFIC
A NOTE
FROM L. M.
PAPER THE
- 1977
EDITOR
FRANKS
There are many motives for writing. George Orwell (1965) gives four; sheer egoism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse and political purpose. Scientists would accept these and most would add “the need to convey information”, although the need to impress grant-giving bodies and selection boards might be whispered sotto vote. One must accept that an essential part of science is communication but this is not always apparent to the average reader of scientific papers. “If people cannot communicate the least they can do is to shut up” is as sound a piece of advice for the scientist as for the playwright for whom it was originally intended. The need to communicate precisely and correctly is not always appreciated. St. Augustine is alleged to have said “A man who is asking God to forgive his sins does not much care whether the third syllable of ignoscere is pronounced long or short. What is correctness of speech except the observance of the usage of others, confirmed by the authority of the speakers of old”. Philip Howard (1976) who provided this illustration goes on to say “Correctness of speech matters because its absence muddies communication. God, unto whom all hearts be all desire known, can get the message (we presume) open, through the miasma of incorrect and inadequate words. The rest of us are extremely prone to misunderstand each other without muddling matters further by misusing the anyway, common currency of words”. Failure to communicate is not always a simple reflection of muddled thinking since many clearthinking scientists give information in speech clearly and with brevity but picking up a pen or sitting in front of a typewriter seems to produce a pattern of thought and expression and a choice of words which can only be explained as a reflex conditioned by the vast Gowers which we have all absorbed. quantity of “literature” (1973) whose books should be bedside reading for all
Cell Biology
6 contributors jargon and
to this pompous
Journal, verbosity
International
gives many which can
Reports,
examples be avoided
Vol. 1, No. I, 1977 of padding, easily.
The standard scientific paper is still the most frequently used method for presenting information but it is probably no longer the most efficient. We now have an opportunity to consider new approaches. For many scientists, and for some work, the standard paper may be the most appropriate form to use. But in many papers, a great deal of unnecessary information is given and the points to be made are often obscured by scientific jargon. For an informed audience an introduction need be very brief indeed. For example an introductory sentence stating that a “fuller understanding of factors controlling cell growth is of great importance in cancer research” can only be regarded as an obeisance to fund giving rather than a necessary introductory statement. bodies, Materials and methods is a vital section but this too can be Standard methods no longer need to be described abbreviated. or referenced, unless the precise application of a technique is an essential feature in obtaining the results described. For example, in electron microscopy, all that is required is the statement, e. g. that “glutaraldehyde osmic acid fixed tissue was embedded in Araldite”. Precise details of embedding times and the fact that sections were mounted on grids and examined in a particular microscope are not of any relevance in most cases. The same principle applies to most other technical methods in cell biology. The whole of this section may be given as a Technical Appendix. The presentation of results can also be reconsidered. Some material may be presentable in tabular form. Data given in a table or illustrated adequately need not be described at length. Other data may best be presented as a series of specific points, e. g. We found that 1. L.
3. to be made in discussion may also be made The implications of our results are e. g. 1. 2. etc. 3. The use and abuse of references is another area which can be In many cases one reference to a critical review considered. may be more useful than a series of references to single papers The points specifically,
Cdl Biology
International
Reports,
7
Vol. 1, No. 1, 1977
in which a particular point was made for the first considered in the light of more recent information.
time
but not
Our policy statement and Instructions to Authors give more No doubt there are many other ways in which practical details. scientific communication may be improved. Cell Biology International Reports will consider any that are suggested. REFERENCES Gowers, E. (1973) The Complete Plain Words (Revised by B. Fraser) Penguin Books Limited, Harmondsworth, U. K. Howard, P. (1976) T ime we all turned our backs on ‘interface’. The Times (London) 5th March. Orwell, G. (1965) Why I Write. In: Decline of the English Murder and Other Essays. pp. 180-188. Penguin Books Limited, Harmondsworth, U. K.